Recently I have gone from detesting Ron Paul, to detesting Ron Paul supporters.

Most Ron Paul supporters are college kids who don't know much or even care much about politics but are absolutely in love with Ron Paul. It speaks for America's youth that a candidate can get support by merely including the word "love" on his banners in a semi-clever way and name dropping websites like google and youtube. Are my peers so impressionable? Or is it just that I live in red state Arizona?

This is less a topic I want to fervently debate than get some insight to.

If you are angry after reading the topic of this debate, please do not debate me.

In a way, supporting any politician is a fad. A fad is short-lived enthusiasm for something without regards to its qualities. After the election is over and candidates win and lose, enthusiasm dies since there is no more campaigning to do. But without regards to quality is where you are wrong.

To say that Ron Paul is gaining support because he has "love" on the Ron Paul revolution signs is a weak argument. I could say the same thing about any other candidate that had "values" or "strength" written on their campaign signs (which, the Ron Paul revolution sign isn't the official Ron Paul logo, but rather made entirely by grass-roots supporters.)

Ron Paul's appeal is that he actually wants to talk about things such as philosophy of government, causes and effects. When terrorism is brought up he doesn't just spew out something stupid like, "they are freedom haters," but actually uses history to explain why things are the way they are.

Ron Paul actually brings up things you have to think about, while other candidates just pander to "value" voters on issues you "feel."

Some of my friends used to not like Ron Paul, just assuming he was some fringe candidate. But after actually listening to him in the debate, they have come to favor him because of his ideas. I'm not so sure why college age kids would find it "cool" to support a gravely, 72 year old man, other than they thought his ideas were worth working for.

My friends whom I never even imagined would care for any thing political have become staunch Paul supporters because they find him to have a certain candor about him and policies that make sense. If they were getting involved just to be cool, they would probably support Rudy Guiliani since he has been on Saturday Night Live.

Besides, when I go to Ron Paul rallies, college students make up the small minority.

So I think the Ron Paul "Revolution" is something real and seemingly magical and can almost bring hope back to the political process that this kind of grass roots activity exists.

I agree with you, many people stop caring about an election after it ends, but they shouldn't stop caring aout the candidate(s) they support. It is a fad, in that the majority of people supporting Ron Paul now with enthusiasm will cease to do so after he loses, and he will lose.

I don't think the "love" argument could be made for other politicians because values and strength have always been desireable attributes of a president. Love, traditionally has not been. Althought I think it should be, I think the Ron Paul people are using it as a gimmick, playing on the love and hippie trend that has become popular as of late.

"Ron Paul's appeal is that he actually wants to talk about things such as philosophy of government, causes and effects. When terrorism is brought up he doesn't just spew out something stupid like, "they are freedom haters," but actually uses history to explain why things are the way they are." This is true, but it's also true of almost every democratic candidate and many other Republican candidates as well.

I think that issues "you feel" are important.

I have listened to Ron Paul and his ideas and I think they stray from Libertarian values on top of at times being non-sensicle. I'm not a Libertarian and neither is he, but almost everyone who supports him is. I think a lot of new Libertarians don't understand what it means to have libertarian ideals and mistake them for Republican ideals.

"If they were getting involved just to be cool, they would probably support Rudy Guiliani since he has been on Saturday Night Live." I don't think that's true, besides, I'm not claiming that he's cool because of any of the conventional ideas of what cool is. He is radical and that may play a factor, I don't know.

"Besides, when I go to Ron Paul rallies, college students make up the small minority." That may be true for you, but I disagree. Although I've never been to a Ron Paul rally, I find the people most passionate about talking about Ron paul are college age kids.

I just think that Ron paul supporters spend their time talking about what they think they know about his campaign, and spend for too little time researching the constitution for example which they seem to mention a lot of. Or any other candidates.

This may not be you, but in my experience, it's a lot of Ron Paul supporters.

"I agree with you, many people stop caring about an election after it ends, but they shouldn't stop caring aout the candidate(s) they support. It is a fad, in that the majority of people supporting Ron Paul now with enthusiasm will cease to do so after he loses, and he will lose."

No, because there is already a draft movements to have Ron Paul run as a libertarian party candidate or an independent. So it doesn't look like people will quit caring after the primaries. I can't say that I have a feeling that he will win, but I think he will do a lot better then people will give him credit for.

"I don't think the "love" argument could be made for other politicians because values and strength have always been desireable attributes of a president. Love, traditionally has not been. Althought I think it should be, I think the Ron Paul people are using it as a gimmick, playing on the love and hippie trend that has become popular as of late."

Loving Ron Paul is a gimmick? How is it any more of a gimmick then "Vote for this guy because he has values?" Values is just a buzz word to get Christians excited. Last time I checked, not to many Ron Paul supporters were hippies, although some are.

"I think that issues "you feel" are important."

No, when Mitt Romney says he wants to make strong families, that is a feeling issue because there is no way for the government to force you to be a closer family. But people have strong emotions about families and morality, so to be pro-family sounds good, but when you prod it, it says nothing. Are you pro-family? It's like saying, "Do you support the troops?" or "Do you support the people of Iowa?" Well, I don't know anyone from Iowa, but these whole campaigns are ran basically on mindless slogans like that.

Letting currencies backed by gold compete against federal reserve notes doesn't really pander to any sort of emotions equivalent to family or morality. There are important issues about fiat currency and central banking that go back to the beginning of the country.

"I have listened to Ron Paul and his ideas and I think they stray from Libertarian values on top of at times being non-sensicle. I'm not a Libertarian and neither is he, but almost everyone who supports him is. I think a lot of new Libertarians don't understand what it means to have libertarian ideals and mistake them for Republican ideals."

True, there is some debates among libertarians (mainly those from the Cato Institue and the Ludwig Von Mises Institue) about Ron Paul, but to suggest that he isn't libertarian at all is a stretch. If you go to votematch.com they have all the candidates ranking in a politcal square spectrum and Ron Paul is the only one who falls in the libertarian category. He was the libertarian party candidate in 1988. Here are just some of his libertarian ideals: Ending the war on drugs, non-interventionist foreign policy, cutting taxes and replacing them with nothing, cutting spending, getting the federal government out of schools, for gun rights, against national health care, against corporate welfare, for gold-backed money. The only issues you might be able to make a case that he is not libertarian is abortion and free trade (sort of). He is the favorite candidate of Reason Magazine, the nations largest libertarian magazine. You either don't know what libertarian means or you are thinking of someone else besides Ron Paul.

"Although I've never been to a Ron Paul rally, I find the people most passionate about talking about Ron paul are college age kids."

Maybe you should go to one. I bet you would have a good time. Second, he is also the most popular with active military personel. The fact that kids are passionate about it seems to suggest that it is more then a fad. People don't get attached to fads, which is what makes them come and go. If Ron Paul were a fad, my friends who don't normally care for politics put support Ron Paul wouldn't be donating time and money to help his cause.

"He is radical and that may play a factor, I don't know."

And? There are lots of other "radical" candidates running, but none of them have support like Ron Paul. If it was radical that mattered, why not support Dennis Kucinich? I think it is because Ron Paul taps into something those other candidates don't have.

"I just think that Ron paul supporters spend their time talking about what they think they know about his campaign, and spend for too little time researching the constitution for example which they seem to mention a lot of. Or any other candidates."

I'm not a constitutional scholar, but you don't have to be one to know Ron Paul quotes the constitution more than any other candidate. I have two copies, one of them I got for free at a Ron Paul rally. I think Ron Paul supports spend as much as time researching other candidates as do supporters of any other candidate.

Besides, the most "fad" presidential candidate, hands-down, is Barack Obama. He was talked about as a candidate for President before he was even elected to the U.S. Senate. He doesn't have much of a record to examine--which has played to his advantage--and but college students like him because of his youth and charisma. I don't think Ron Paul supporters are drawn to him because of his looks. Most of my democratic friends like Obama, but to get an answer of substance of why they like him is hard to do. Obama supporters just put something on facebook saying they support him; Ron Paul supporters do the same, but also put their money where their mouth is and volunteer through sites like meetup.com

"No, because there is already a draft movements to have Ron Paul run as a libertarian party candidate or an independent. So it doesn't look like people will quit caring after the primaries. I can't say that I have a feeling that he will win, but I think he will do a lot better then people will give him credit for."

It's very respectable to run as a third party but everyone who understand the election system knows that the chances of a third party candidate being elected are slim if not nonexistent.

"Loving Ron Paul is a gimmick? How is it any more of a gimmick then "Vote for this guy because he has values?" Values is just a buzz word to get Christians excited. Last time I checked, not to many Ron Paul supporters were hippies, although some are."

You are completely missing my point.

"No, when Mitt Romney says he wants to make strong families, that is a feeling issue because there is no way for the government to force you to be a closer family. But people have strong emotions about families and morality, so to be pro-family sounds good, but when you prod it, it says nothing. Are you pro-family? It's like saying, "Do you support the troops?" or "Do you support the people of Iowa?" Well, I don't know anyone from Iowa, but these whole campaigns are ran basically on mindless slogans like that."

Again, completely missing my point.

I get what YOU'RE saying though. It's so frustrating to even address your comments at this point Not only are you missing my points but your also using a sarcastic tone. I will say one more thing and then you can have the win on this one if you'd like.

"Besides, the most "fad" presidential candidate, hands-down, is Barack Obama. He was talked about as a candidate for President before he was even elected to the U.S. Senate. He doesn't have much of a record to examine--which has played to his advantage--and but college students like him because of his youth and charisma. I don't think Ron Paul supporters are drawn to him because of his looks. Most of my democratic friends like Obama, but to get an answer of substance of why they like him is hard to do. Obama supporters just put something on facebook saying they support him; Ron Paul supporters do the same, but also put their money where their mouth is and volunteer through sites like meetup.com"

I am a Barack Obama supporter and I could give you a long list of why. I have put a lot of money into his campaign and volunteer through the grassroots committee. I actually like Joe Biden and Dennis Kucinich better but I'm realistic and choose to back a candidate who has a real shot at winning.

I think it's silly for people to back Ron Paul, not only because he wont win, but because in my opinion he is actually bad for this country and the world. He's against the war and that's great, he wants gold backing our money, and that's good. BUT he wants to denationalize schools! No thanks. I would also never ever vote for someone who wants to keep people searching for a better life out of this country and then spend MY tax dollars to send them back to our neighbor country that we do nothing to help. I could say so much more but it doesn't matter because I respect your choice to vote for whomever you see fit for the presidency.

I hope I have not used a sarcastic or condecending tone during this debate, as you have.

Thanks for giving me an insight into a Ron Paul supporter. I guess I realize it's just a matter of opinion.

My apologies if I sounded sarcastic and condescending. When I suggesting that you might enjoy a Ron Paul rally, I was merely trying to inject some light-hearted humor into the conversation, but I forgot that I am bad at those types of jokes and that they often get lost in text fourm. My bad.

artC: "It's very respectable to run as a third party but everyone who understand the election system knows that the chances of a third party candidate being elected are slim if not nonexistent."

Reply: But your point was that peopole will quit caring about Ron Paul after he loses because it won't be cool anymore, but you are wrong because if Ron Paul does lose the primaries, people will still care and want him to run.

Me: "Loving Ron Paul is a gimmick? How is it any more of a gimmick then "Vote for this guy because he has values?" Values is just a buzz word to get Christians excited. Last time I checked, not to many Ron Paul supporters were hippies, although some are."

ArtC: You are completely missing my point.

Reply: If you are going to call the "love" in revolution a gimmick, then by your definitions, any political bannar or logo is a "gimmick." Obama having an American flag in his O is a gimmick. Isn't that exploiting the jingonistic tendencies of American voters?

Me: "No, when Mitt Romney says he wants to make strong families, that is a feeling issue because there is no way for the government to force you to be a closer family. But people have strong emotions about families and morality, so to be pro-family sounds good, but when you prod it, it says nothing. Are you pro-family? It's like saying, "Do you support the troops?" or "Do you support the people of Iowa?" Well, I don't know anyone from Iowa, but these whole campaigns are ran basically on mindless slogans like that."

You: Again, completely missing my point.

Reply: No, because I was distinguishing how issues Ron Paul brings up in debates are not just mindless slogans like other candidates. There is actually some thought that has to go into processing what Ron Paul is saying. So I don't "feel" these issues are important, I know they are by reasoning.

You: "I am a Barack Obama supporter and I could give you a long list of why. I have put a lot of money into his campaign and volunteer through the grassroots committee. I actually like Joe Biden and Dennis Kucinich better but I'm realistic and choose to back a candidate who has a real shot at winning.

I think it's silly for people to back Ron Paul, not only because he wont win,"

Reply: The lesser of two evils is still evil. And the enemy of my enemy is not my friend. Barry Goldwater didn't really have a chance to beat Lyndon Johnson, but he did plant the seeds for a conservative movement that came full swing with Regean, and has since, at least in my opinion, died-off. I think if Ron Paul can cause some comotion in the primaries, he could do something similar. Plus, you can never be sure who is going to win. Jimmy Carter came out of no where in the primaries to be president. And to say you arn't going to vote for a candidate is circular reasoning implemented by the establishment media who serve as the gate keepers of our society. We aren't going to vote for this candidate because he won't win, and he won't win because we won't vote for him. He is an A B'er because he B's A. Even if Ron Paul does lose this battle, the war of ideas will go on forever.

artc: "but because in my opinion he is actually bad for this country and the world. He's against the war and that's great, he wants gold backing our money, and that's good. BUT he wants to denationalize schools! No thanks."

Reply: I would say this is his best quality, but that is another debate.

artc: "I would also never ever vote for someone who wants to keep people searching for a better life out of this country and then spend MY tax dollars to send them back to our neighbor country that we do nothing to help."

Reply: He isn't against immigration per se, just that our welfare state serves as a magnate for immigrants, which strains our system. Unlimited unqualified immigration and a massive welfare state can not co-exist, it is just a constrain of reality.

artc: I could say so much more but it doesn't matter because I respect your choice to vote for whomever you see fit for the presidency.

Hahaha I know what ArtC is saying and I agree with her on almost every point, living in Hippyland, California in a college town (of course) Ron Paul campaign signs have popped up all over within the last couple of weeks, I'm gonna have to say this is more faddish than Barack supporters who are all but minus one in this town because the feminist support Hilary and the bigot hippy's support Ron Paul and if you ask either of them why what you'll have is mouth open, shoulders shrugging, silence....

Both of the last comments are fair. My dislike has gone back to just Ron Paul and not ALL of his supporter. This may be do to that fact that I've been on winter break, it is very possible that I will go back to hating Ron Paul supporters as soon as I go back to school.

I've learned more about Ron Paul in the last couple of weeks than I knew when I started this debate, and I can honestly say I like him much less. May opinion of Libertarianism has not changed however, I love freedom.

I find it unfair to say that, it's a huge generalization. I'm in high school, I won't even be able to vote in Michigan's primary, or the general election. I still know WHY I support Ron Paul, and it is definently not because it's a fad.

The reason why you support Obama and not Kucinich or Gravel is the reason why they'll never win. Additionally, its the reason why Ron Paul supporters will never give up on Ron Paul, and their fervor for freedom won't wane anytime soon.

Sorry, I have reconsidered and I haven't changed my mind. I just haven't heard anything to convince me that Ron Paul has any of the things I care about in mind. Well, not any, that's not fair, but mostly.